MESHGuides

Local and district stakeholders were identified and incorporated into projects wherever possible. With District Councillors on board, wards and lesser social components tended to fall into line more easily. There was then a uniform understanding of processes. Churches such as the Shembe and those affiliated to the South African Council of Churches were also significant role-players. Many people were drawn to these programmes very strongly if the churches supported them.

Three main categories of learning outcomes were pursued, including skills, knowledge and values/attitudes. At the end of each lesson a check was made to ensure that each of the three had been addressed well. Knowledge and skills were actively used in context. Lessons were often introduced by a story or discussion, and exercises were evaluated by encouraging feedback. Group work was used for building words and eventually writing sentences, describing the events in pictures and encouraging free thinking about such topics as home industries, domestic violence and substance abuse.

Local community themes formed the subject content of the curriculum. This concept was dependent on research and the careful investigation of community needs. If there were no clinics, for instance, the purification of water would be part of the curriculum since it carried with it skills that were crucial to the welfare of the particular community that had identified the lack of clean water as a pressing need. As a starting point, within four months people could learn to read in their mother tongue, with 128 hours spent on the programme.

A great effort was made to ensure that learners 'learnt how to learn'. The teacher-centred approaches were therefore rejected in favour of a ‘constructivist view’. Communities had a choice of who would be recognized as a facilitator; a factor that made the best candidates step forward to prove their credentials. The implications for improved social stability and the addressing of negative activities involving young adults within communities were clear.

The selection of matriculants (those who had completed twelve years of formal schooling successfully, with superior achievements) as facilitators was important for these young people, since there is probably no quicker way to learn that to facilitate learning for others. The improvement of their chances of entry to further study in colleges or universities could not be stressed too strongly. Matriculant facilitators were supported by a stipend. Their entry to the programme was eased by a simplification of bureaucratic entry requirements, as shown later under 'Monitoring Progress'.

From the outset, communities were drawn in to give their opinions, advice and ideas. ‘Community mobilisers’ went into the field and invited people’s contributions with the words: “Talk to us”. Indeed the term Masifundisane means “We learn together”. Yet another rallying cry was: “Each one, teach one”. A problem-solving methodology was reaffirmed for the literacy programmes.

Particular attention was given to rural areas, and the density of unemployment, poverty and consequent illiteracy figures were identified and clarified. It was resolved to try and address rural conditions through the programme so that people would be reaffirmed and developed as self-sufficient and productive citizens where their home communities had emerged historically.

Attempts would be made to address such other matters as health including AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, with developments in health also achieved through the literary focus of the programme.

The strategic plan that emerged after the Cuba visit reflected five objectives, namely to: 

• Provide easy access to the programme for illiterate adults
• Create partnerships with various parties who could add critical resources to 
• the initiative 
• Create relevant curricula
• Train facilitators, and monitor and evaluate the programme effectively
• Develop institutional capacities.

In 2006 several senior members of the Masifundisane team visited Cuba and spent two weeks in that country. They discussed issues with a wide spectrum of people, conversed with every literacy stakeholder available and generally sought insights from people who had promoted literacy in Cuba from the grassroots up. The team returned fired with enthusiasm.

The basic approach to implementation of the programme was planned in such a way that it was driven by impoverished local communities themselves. It did not depend fundamentally on external resources because it was thought by the government funded Masifundisane team that these agencies might not address community needs adequately.